The Epicurean Argument Essay: The Nature Of Life And Death
When considering the nature of life and death, as this essay will explore, we must understand that there are multiple ways of looking at the concept of death. Firstly, it is necessary to discuss Nagel’s argues that death is intrinsically bad because it deprives us of life, and whether or not this is true in light of the Epicurean argument that something we are not able to experience cannot be bad. However, there is a possible refuting of the Epicurean argument involving the idea that something can be bad whether or not we are able to experience it. Nagel’s argument can also be assessed with a closer examination of the very nature of life and death.
Nagel’s argument primarily focuses on the idea that death is inherently bad due to the fact that …show more content…
If we believe a living person to be somebody who is conscious and able to make decisions as well as uphold basic functions of their body, then can a foetus be considered living? The common sense answer is yes, perhaps either in a similar way to a sunflower being alive despite the fact that it has no consciousness. Or, if we are to believe that human life and death is somehow different to other living organisms, we could argue that a foetus is alive because it has the potential for becoming a conscious being. Furthermore, if we instead consider that human death occurs upon entire body shut down, or an “irreversible loss of functioning of the organism as a whole”, this means that somebody in a coma or permanent vegetative state can be considered alive. Is the death of this person inherently bad, when people who agree with Nagel would agree that they have already lost the potential goods of life, even though they are not dead? It is apparent that Nagel’s argument is flawed, both on the basis that he does not clarify what he believes death to be and the basis that ‘badness’ is subjective, and could in fact be argued the very reason for life’s supposed ‘goodness’, as it provides a reason to enjoy your life before it is
Nagel’s argument primarily focuses on the idea that death is inherently bad due to the fact that …show more content…
If we believe a living person to be somebody who is conscious and able to make decisions as well as uphold basic functions of their body, then can a foetus be considered living? The common sense answer is yes, perhaps either in a similar way to a sunflower being alive despite the fact that it has no consciousness. Or, if we are to believe that human life and death is somehow different to other living organisms, we could argue that a foetus is alive because it has the potential for becoming a conscious being. Furthermore, if we instead consider that human death occurs upon entire body shut down, or an “irreversible loss of functioning of the organism as a whole”, this means that somebody in a coma or permanent vegetative state can be considered alive. Is the death of this person inherently bad, when people who agree with Nagel would agree that they have already lost the potential goods of life, even though they are not dead? It is apparent that Nagel’s argument is flawed, both on the basis that he does not clarify what he believes death to be and the basis that ‘badness’ is subjective, and could in fact be argued the very reason for life’s supposed ‘goodness’, as it provides a reason to enjoy your life before it is